Showing posts with label Jerry Nadler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jerry Nadler. Show all posts

Thursday, July 25, 2019

GOP Rep. Ken Buck buries Trump in Mueller testimony


July 25, 2019: PROGRESSIVE STREET...Where Liberals Walk  

Did Robert Mueller say the "I" word?
GOP Rep. Ken Buck trashes Trump

A Republican, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), "asked Mueller if he could indict the president on obstruction charges."
"The former special counsel’s answer was simple: 'Yes.'"
This sent Republicans racing for cover since it was completely unexpected. This is why...
"Mueller’s position is that he didn’t consider indicting Trump solely because of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) ruling saying sitting presidents can’t be indicted. But Trump won’t be president forever, and Mueller’s view is that once Trump is out of office, prosecutors could charge him with obstruction if they believe the facts laid out in the report warrant it."
And that should send Trump's lawyer's running for cover, since the whole family is already overrun with litigation like the action of New York's southern district. Mueller's reply was completely unanticipated, that is if these people read the Mueller Report. But the former Special Counsel has been telling everyone so far that in his testimony, he would stick strictly to the report. Well, he didn't, and that will no doubt send shivers through Donald Trump's tweets.

Republicans did so before and continued throughout the morning questions of the hearing to expound "that Mueller’s report exonerated him [Donald Trump] (Mueller said at the outset that it did not) or that there was some kind of anti-Trump conspiracy involved in its production. It all came unraveled after that...
Congressman: "Could you charge the President with a crime after he left office?"
Mueller: "Yes."
 Read more...

GOP Rep. Ken Buck buries Trump...


And that wasn't the only shocker for Republicans

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) provided a similar surprise by asking Mueller...
"to confirm that the only reason Trump was not indicted was because that is prohibited by an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel."
“That is correct,” Mueller agreed.
Raw Story has compiled a list of some reasons why Mueller's testimony was "devastating for Trump." Here are a couple...
"Trump has repeatedly claimed Mueller’s report found no evidence of obstruction of justice and completely exonerated him, but the former special counsel told committee chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) that was inaccurate."
"Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) asked Mueller whether the president tried to protect himself by ordering staff to falsify records, and the former special counsel agreed, and Mueller also agreed those actions were intended to hamper the investigation."
Mueller and his team were accused of political bias and the former Special Prosecutor's credibility was questioned, but the obvious GOP bias was easily explained. All in all, it seemed a good day for Democrats.

Read more...

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Blue collar workers betrayed by Donald Trump


July 24, 2019: TODAY'S NEWS BYTES  

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler says no to DOJ

That was then...but not anymore
Robert Mueller is scheduled to testify before the House today and Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer is telling him just how he wants it done. Or rather, what it is he doesn't want Mueller to say. And that would be anything that hasn't already been said in the Mueller Report. In other words, keep your opinions to yourself. But Rep. Jerry Nadler, who heads up the hearing, tells Weinsheimer he can't tell Robert Mueller what to say.

It seems that...
"Weinsheimer wrote in a letter to Mueller on Monday that the former FBI director’s testimony must remain within the boundaries of the 448-page special counsel investigative report the department released in redacted form on April 18.
He added...
"that some matters covered by the inquiry were covered by “executive privilege,” a legal principle rarely invoked by U.S. presidents to keep other branches of government from getting access to certain internal executive branch information. It generally is used to keep private internal discussions between the president and his advisers."
Nadler said, not so, and that "Mueller did not need to follow the instructions contained in the letter." Nadler stated...
“He does not have to comply with that letter. He doesn’t work for them. And that letter asks things that are beyond the power of the agency to ask even if he still worked for them.”
By the time this is posted, the hearing should be in its third hour and Robert Mueller should have committed one way or the other by then. Be sure and tune in.

Trump has deserted blue-collar Americans

Donald Trump got where he is today by...
"his appeals to blue-collar white workers in the Midwest with promises that included rebuilding America’s manufacturing industry, invest money in the country’s crumbling infrastructure, and using Medicare’s negotiating power to lower the cost of prescription drugs."
However, in what Brad Reed of Raw Story calls a devastating New York Times report, it is a fact that...
"the president has 'accomplished little' for these Americans and is instead relying on fueling culture wars to win the 2020 election."
Just another case of T-rump using people who, for some reason or other, don't realize how pitifully they are being had. Reed quotes more from the report...
“Since he became president, Mr. Trump has largely operated as a conventional Republican, signing taxes that benefit high-end earners and companies, rolling back regulations on corporations and appointing administration officials and judges with deep roots in the conservative movement. His approach has delighted much of the political right.”
But hasn't done a damn thing for these Midwest blue-collar white workers. The question is how many voters are there on the political right compared to middle-America?

Blue collar workers betrayed by Donald Trump


Are we a nation today of feeble apathetics? My term for no one cares anymore

Paul Waldman of The American Prospect asks, "This is not who we are — or is it?" He refers, of course, to the Donald Trump administration and its blundering through over two years now. He comments...
"Candidates say it. Ex-candidates say it. Pundits say it. It’s as much a desperate plea as it is an assertion. This is not who we are…is it?"
Waldman thinks this is also a question for each presidential election when the referendum of an individual can tell us who we are. We elected Barack Obama in 2008 and thought that defined us as a nation of "multiethnic and multiracial, open and inclusive, forward-looking and forward-thinking." And then Donald Trump was elected and it was open house for white supremacy and a reversion to Southern type racism.

Right after Obama was elected...
"But right away, Republicans said, 'No. That is not who we are.' They expressed their loathing for Obama in a hundred ways, but at its center was the belief that he was not Us—not born here, not a Christian like he claimed, with a worldview 'so outside our comprehension,' in Newt Gingrich’s words, that he could only be some sort of alien."
"Then along came Donald Trump," Waldman says, followed by calling T-rump a number of names like loathsome and stupid, while praising how he won the 2016 election. He did and that's the reason for the question, "This is not who we are — or is it?" Well...is it?

Donald Trump Says He Will Be Indicted On Tuesday

  THAT'S TODAY... Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has brought the case to this point, now looking at a possible indictment. Trum...